MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410354900 · doi:10.46747/cfp.7105324

Sociodemographic variation in use of and preferences for digital technologies among patients in primary care

2025· article· en· W4410354900 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Benoît Corriveau, Rick Wang, Alexander Beyer, Maryam Daneshvarfard, Mylaine Breton, Neb Kovacina, Lindsay Hedden, Goldis Mitra, Michael Green, Danielle Martin, Danielle Brown-Shreves, Jasmin Kay, Peter MacLeod, Clifton van der Linden, Tara Kiran

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)University of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityWomen's College HospitalQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersHealth CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité de MontréalOntario Medical AssociationCanadian Medical AssociationUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversitySimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of TorontoWomen's College HospitalMcMaster UniversityQueen's University
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Primary careComputer scienceData scienceWorld Wide WebMedicineFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between patient sociodemographic characteristics and adoption of and preferences for digital technologies in primary care. DESIGN: Cross-sectional bilingual online survey conducted in the fall of 2022. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adults living in Canada aged 18 and older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics were reviewed and a bivariate analysis was conducted of 8 outcomes by sociodemographic characteristic. Models included the following 8 self-reported characteristics: gender, age, province, level of education, level of income, rurality, whether the participant was born in Canada, and health status. Descriptive responses to a question on why video appointments were not important for some respondents were also examined. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 9279 completed responses. Compared to those earning more than $150,000, respondents earning less than $30,000 were less likely to have recently used email or secure messaging (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.87) or video calls (aOR=0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.37) or want to use email or secure messaging (aOR=0.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97) or video calls (aOR=0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.68). Compared to university graduates, respondents with a high school diploma or below were less likely to have used email or secure messaging (aOR=0.67, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.90) or video calls (aOR=0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.76) or want to use email or secure messaging (aOR=0.74, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.91) or video calls (aOR=0.73, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.90). People earning less than $30,000 were less likely to have accessed personal health records (aOR=0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.61) or place importance on accessing them (aOR=0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.88). Similarly, people with a high school diploma or less were less likely to access personal health records (aOR=0.61, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.76) and place importance on accessing them (aOR=0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.86). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that people living with a lower income or who have less formal education are less likely to have used digital technologies or consider them important. Further research and policy work should help to understand barriers to adoption of digital technologies and develop tailored interventions to enable equitable access to health care services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicTelemedicine and Telehealth ImplementationFrench-language works237,207